Mr. Speaker, the Explosives Act is an act of public and worker safety which regulates the composition, quality and character of explosives in addition to their manufacture, importation, sale, purchase, possession and storage. It also controls the use of fireworks.
The amendment is necessary to require the incorporation of a detectable additive in plastic explosives coupled with a provision to enable the governor in council to make regulations to control unmarked plastic explosives. This will hinder terrorism and will enable Canada to ratify the ICAO convention on the marking of plastic explosives for the purpose of detection.
The principal provisions of the bill are worth noting. The principles are: to require the marking of most plastic explosives for the purpose of detection; to prohibit the manufacture, storage, possession, transfer of possession, transportation, import and export of unmarked plastic explosives, except as may be permitted by the terms of the convention or required by overriding military necessity; and to empower the governor in council to make regulations governing the possession, transfer and disposal of any unmarked plastic explosives.
The passage of the legislation will vault Canada ahead of the U.S. as the only producer state in the Americas to have ratified the convention.
Many questions have been asked with respect to the Explosives Act. Some of those questions are technical; others relate to policy and still others are legal questions. I intend to address those questions today.
One technical question asked is: Will the addition of a detection agent be effective in combating terrorism in disguise? The answer is yes. The proposed detection agents are of such character they can be detected by bomb detection equipment of current technology and use in Canada. This would render marked plastic explosives an undesirable choice for assembling bombs. A second benefit from tagging plastic explosives is that detection of illegal stockpiles will be simplified.
Another technical question often asked is: Will the presence of the detection agent compromise the performance or safety of plastic explosives? The answer is no. Only one type of plastic explosive, a military version known as C-4, is manufactured in small quantities in Canada. The safety and performance characteristics of the marked version have been verified by the manufacturer, the military and the Canadian Explosives Research Laboratory.
Another technical question asked is: Will there be a problem in using the existing stocks of unmarked plastic explosives? The answer is no. Small existing stocks of unmarked plastic explosives in Canada coupled with ample grace periods of three years for the public and fifteen years for the military police to use up or destroy these stocks were judged to be satisfactory during consultations with all concerned parties.
Another technical question often asked is whether explosives technology is advancing so rapidly that this initiative will soon be rendered obsolete. The answer is no. Explosives technology is stable at this time. In North America, plastic explosives are implicated in very few bombs targeted at aircraft. Prohibitions against the import, export and transfer of unmarked plastic explosives will discourage terrorists from using Canada as a location to plant bombs on aircraft.
Many policy questions have been raised as well. One question often asked is who may manufacture, possess and use plastic explosives in Canada and how will the legislation affect their activities. Plastic explosives in the form of military demolition charges are manufactured in small quantities on an as required basis by Les produits chimiques Expro in Valleyfield, Quebec. This manufacturer is authorized by its factory licence, which is issued pursuant to the Explosives Act and regulations. Sale and distribution of this product is limited to the military, as well as police explosives disposal units.
Commercial plastic explosives in sheet form are legally imported from the U.S. by companies engaged in hardening metal surfaces and explosives welding. The sole Canadian manufacturer does not expect any problems. Importers of commercial plastic explosives in sheet form, however, may experience difficulties in locating suppliers of marked product.
Another policy question often asked is whether these new restrictions will affect competitiveness. The answer is no. It is estimated that the cost associated with incorporating the additive will increase selling prices by no more than 1.25 per cent. It is quite possible that the Canadian manufacturer could realize a competitive advantage in international markets by being fast off the mark in offering marked products.
Another policy question often asked is if this initiative is connected in any way to the new proposed gun control legislation. The answer is no. This initiative is the result of an agreement
signed in March 1991 and has no connection whatsoever to the gun control legislation recently tabled.
Often legal questions are asked with respect to the act. One question often asked is why the act is to come into force by order in council. It is specifically provided that the act will come into force on a day to be set by the order of the governor in council to ensure that the grace periods provided for in the convention will be respected. This will enable us to make the date of coming into force of the act coincide with that of the coming into force of the convention.
Another legal question often asked is when the convention will come into force. It is impossible to predict when the convention will come into force. Section 3 of article 13 of the convention provides that the convention will come into force on the 60th day following the date of deposit of the 35th instrument of ratification by a state, provided that at least five states have declared they are producer states. Should 35 instruments of ratification be deposited before the deposit of their instruments by five producer states, the convention will come into force on the 60th day following the date of deposit of the instrument of ratification of the fifth producer state.
Another legal question often asked is what happens to the definition of detection agent if the technical annex is amended. This is not a problem. The word convention is defined to refer to the convention as amended from time to time. This means that the definition of detection agent is ambulatory. It will follow any amendment in the technical annex to the convention.
Finally a further legal question often asked is what happens to the definition of plastic explosives if the convention is amended. Amendments to the definition of plastic explosives in the convention would not be automatically reflected in the Explosives Act because we repeated the definition instead of referring to it. We would have to amend the definition in the Explosives Act in order to have it follow an amendment to that found in the convention. However, from a practical point of view this should not be a problem. The definition of plastic explosives is standard. Furthermore it is unlikely that the convention itself will be amended. The only amendments contemplated are to the technical annex.
In addition to the technical questions, the policy questions, and the legal questions, we have what we refer to as miscellaneous questions. It is often asked why it took nearly five years from the March 1991 signing of the convention to table the bill. Initial MOU development, which began shortly after the signing of the convention, involved considerable consultation with DND, Canada Customs, and Transport Canada. Additional time was lost in 1993 when there was a change in government prior to the tabling and approval of the memorandum to cabinet. It required a second consultation and resubmission of the MC.
In conclusion I support the Explosives Act. As a member of the natural resources committee I recommend Bill C-71, the Explosives Act, at report stage to this honourable House.